Race eligibility

[Browser]

I'm not a newbie on this forum but don't own a 'bent (yet) so I'm probably raking over old, explosive, smouldering muck, but why the hell won't the ACU review their decades-old and in my view idiotic ruling regarding the elegibility of recumbents for racing. By racing I mean all-entry stuff rather than the specialist racess for HPVs? I am aware, having read about when the ban came in, that the ACU were concenrned that a less than top-flight rider would be able to win top-flight events using a 'bent, but surely there has to be scope for a review. I did Flat Out In The Fens on Sunday last and by 70 miles was wishing beyond anything that I'd a 'bent to use for these events due to the discomfort I was in hunched over the drops on my Tifosi. Don't get me wrong, I love my bike but 'bents just make so much sense don't they? I hav eheard the argument that riders don't want to be beaten by technology but other riders, but what the hell d'you call electronic gearshifts, carbon wheels/frames, ceramic brakes etc etc etc? I just thinkt that the established industry has too much vested interest in producing upwrongs to want someone to come along and decide 'bents are for everyone, what say you????

 

[machew]

ACU/UCI commissioners will persuasively argue that recumbents aren't "truly" banned. Those recumbent riders who have attempted to enter recumbents in races have been disqualified for a variety (and seemingly endless) of "safety" issues such as exposed gearing, bicycle overall length, and so on, all in the "name" of safety

 

[byegad]

No the UCI banned them by coming up with rules for wheel size, handlebar position and seat position.

 

[Browser]

But isn't it daft though? Can you imagine the leaps and bounds 'bents would come on in if they were used in the TDF? And the drop in price as they became more mainstream

 

[henshaw11]

To be fair to the UCI, the rules are there to level the playing field (team tactics aside, of course) so that it's less dependant on technology - and in any case, things still (AFAIA) still have to be agreed with the UCI before they can be used. AFAIA it's only this last (?) year that cross bikes are allowed disks. DFs are relatively easy to compare to each other, but how do you compare a 'bent with one ? On a flat TT course a 'bent - with the right rider conditioning - could have an advantage over DFs. Is that fair ? On the other hand, a 'bent could be a distict disadvantage in the mountains - which is why I doubt you'll never see them in the the TdF, even if the regulations were changed (and without a separate classification). There's an arguable concern re 'bents/DFs together in chaingangs - certainly some of the DF fraternity aren't keen but I don't know how much of a real problem that's be...
The only way I can see thing might change is if there were a separate race classification, but for that to happen there's also got to be the demand...and there's an element of chicken<>egg therein. It's comfort that makes me (mostly) ride a bent, but I know what I'd ride in hillier stuff if I could..

ISTR there was some mumbling about allowing 'bents in TTs - at least, allowing them to be ridden, rather than competing as such. I think the idea was to be able to include riders that could no longer ride DFs to take part, rather than particulary wanting to allow 'bents - I think there's a thread here somewhere that mentions it/links elsewhere.

 

[byegad]

Yes had the FIA done the same for Grand Prix racing Lewis Hamilton, Jensen Button and the rest of them would be driving around in 1934 Alfa Romeos.

That's a measure of the stupidity of the UCI.

 

[Chonker]

Yes had the FIA done the same for Grand Prix racing Lewis Hamilton, Jensen Button and the rest of them would be driving around in 1934 Alfa Romeos.

That's a measure of the stupidity of the UCI.

And more importantly our road cars wouldn't have things like ABS, fuel injection and other technologies which have come from motor racing.

 

[byegad]

Bang right Chonker. Except they'd probably have then riding horses!

It's not as if DF road racing bikes haven't changed, they have more and better gears, better brakes and they even had to introduce a minimum weigh for the things. The riders no longer have to repair tyres with spares carried during the race. They have radios to talk to each rider and lots of technology has gone into making the frames more aero dynamic. They even get to change bikes for mountain days, flatter days and Time Trial days.

But make a demonstrably *better bike, like Mochet did in 1933 and they have a dicky-fit and ban it. Small wheels with suspension? No Dr Moulton your banned. If it's not about the bike they have made a very good fist dictating the type of bike. .

Hour record by a chunk, leading the peloton for miles with a good but not great rider, riding around the conference table in UCI-HQ to demonstrate good safe handling.
PATHETIC!

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

Yes had the FIA done the same for Grand Prix racing Lewis Hamilton, Jensen Button and the rest of them would be driving around in 1934 Alfa Romeos.

That's something I wouldn't mind seeing.

 

[byegad]

Yes it would be some spectacle. In the early days of Digital TV they ran a test programme on one of the channels. It was at Goodwood and Martin Brundle was driving a D Type Jaguar to some good effect. Pure poetry on four wheels!

 

[Browser]

To be fair to the UCI, the rules are there to level the playing field (team tactics aside, of course) so that it's less dependant on technology - and in any case, things still (AFAIA) still have to be agreed with the UCI before they can be used. AFAIA it's only this last (?) year that cross bikes are allowed disks. DFs are relatively easy to compare to each other, but how do you compare a 'bent with one ?

If they were elegible for racing I'd assume the UCI would come up with a standard, whatever that was, and dimensions for same (min.seat height, wheelbase, frame size/shape/material etc) so that comparisons could be made. I know the differences are far more subtle, but how do you compare one DF with another? Broadly they are the same but in detail they differ greatly.

On a flat TT course a 'bent - with the right rider conditioning - could have an advantage over DFs. Is that fair ?

Yes, 'cos every nugger and his dog would have both if they were elegible, or a purely TT rider would have a 'bent. Remember they only ride DF bikes because that's all that is elegible for racing in conventional competitions at present, give e'm the option they'd be hopping onto NoCom's faster than you can blink

On the other hand, a 'bent could be a distict disadvantage in the mountains - which is why I doubt you'll never see them in the the TdF, even if the regulations were changed (and without a separate classification).

So the all-knowing rulemakers at the UCI would either stipulate all 'bent's, all DFs or allow a mix, in which case it'd be up to the individual to decide (as it blummin' well should be)

There's an arguable concern re 'bents/DFs together in chaingangs - certainly some of the DF fraternity aren't keen but I don't know how much of a real problem that's be...

Oh, wozzat then? I genuinely didn't know this so I'm not being sarcastic, please educate an ignorant. UI presume it's to do with lack of easy visibility in a bunch, or in other words DF riders could, if you like, trip over 'bent's as they're so far out of the normal eyeline?

The only way I can see thing might change is if there were a separate race classification, but for that to happen there's also got to be the demand...and there's an element of chicken<>egg therein. It's comfort that makes me (mostly) ride a bent, but I know what I'd ride in hillier stuff if I could..

Paraphrasing Marie Antoinette, le 'em ride both! Having said that, I suppose you could do this as if you look at the Le Mans 24hr race, there are several different classes of cars on the circuit with widely differing speed capabilities, and all at the same time.

ISTR there was some mumbling about allowing 'bents in TTs - at least, allowing them to be ridden, rather than competing as such. I think the idea was to be able to include riders that could no longer ride DFs to take part, rather than particulary wanting to allow 'bents - I think there's a thread here somewhere that mentions it/links elsewhere.

This sort of thing just smacks to me of protectionism in the etablished industry, which I seem to recall from reading about it was a lobbying group made up of established manuafacturers and riders who, rathetr than embrace change took the easy route and shouted NO!

 

[Boris Bajic]

If someone wants to set up a parallel racing organisation which allows more innovation in design, I imagine they are free to do so.

It may already exist.

WHatever other rules existed in parallel organisations, I imagine 'traditional' bicycle racing would continue to attract most of the sponsors, viewers and supporters.

If you want a hamburger, don't complain that the French restaurant doesn't serve them. Open your own place next door and if the demand is there you'll thrive.

I like road racing as it is. Sorry.

 

[byegad]

Last time I looked at the UKTT rules bents are banned. That some Associations allow them to run is very much an example of the Nelsonian blind eye.

 

[henshaw11]

>If someone wants to set up a parallel racing organisation which allows more innovation in design, I imagine they are free to do so.

>It may already exist.

It does, in the UK it's the bhpc - there are various classes, and AFAIK they tend to race at the same time on closed tracks - it's pretty small numbers in terms of competitors. The Worlds competition was held fairly recently it seems:
http://www.wc2012.bhpc.org.uk/
http://www.wc2012.bhpc.org.uk/rules-and-classes

If they were elegible for racing I'd assume the UCI would come up with a standard, whatever that was, and dimensions for same (min.seat height, wheelbase, frame size/shape/material etc) so that comparisons could be made. I know the differences are far more subtle, but how do you compare one DF with another? Broadly they are the same but in detail they differ greatly.

Even in detail it's relatively not that much, certainly not compared to 'bents. The relationship of bars, saddle etc are nailed down in some detail I gather, and things still have to get through the UCI - there was a recent case of Specialized (?) having a bike they thought would be allowed, then subsequently rejected - something like the headtube having too much of an aerofoil section (or together with the frame it was on) - I forget the details. But DF bikes *are* pretty damn similar- try having a 'common' 'bent spec - high/mid/low racer, USS/ASS, wheelsize, front/rear wheel drive etc - hence the HPV rules are just vague categories.

I could refer to all my previous points which are still valid IMO - the point is why the UCI won't throw open the rule book. I don't exactly disagree with a lot of what you've said, but it still stands that trying to lob HPVs in with DFs just isn't gonna happen and IMO, unless you rip up the rule book. In which case it's no longer (DF) cycle racing, but HPV racing. There's lots of other parallels - single type motorcycle and car racing for example - road racing is simply another single type, if you like. Look at what's happened with MotoGP this year - there's two classes on track, and now the fields split into two groups. I can see the reasoning to do so, but I don't think it's helped it as a race 'cos it's split the field more than would have happened before (or at least, judging by the few races I've seen this year..)

Oh, wozzat then? I genuinely didn't know this so I'm not being sarcastic, please educate an ignorant. UI presume it's to do with lack of easy visibility in a bunch, or in other words DF riders could, if you like, trip over 'bent's as they're so far out of the normal eyeline?

Just the impression I get from a few forum postings, and judging by some posts on bentrideronline.com - some US clubs don't like 'bents on their club rides. Now, in reality it may not be a huge problem, and perhaps not so much on more sociable training rides - might just be a case of an unknown quantity. But in the case of a chaingang it's close bunch - the length of a 'bent may not lend itself to that (guessing where the next guy's wheel is wrt your BB), and typically if you're that close to the guy in front your cranks are gonna be almost brushing his rear wheel - bloody dangerous if he has to move off-line. Plus the guy behind the 'bent will probably (I'm guessing) be having to work harder than if there were a DF in the middle, because there's less aero advantage from the 'bent, and certainly if it's lower. Get to a steep climb and the 'bents will probably drop back - and have to get out of the bunch (tho' probably catch up on the downhill). As you've mentioned, visibility may be a problem - less so for high racers, mebbe more so for something as low as a Nocom (tho' they are a large black thing....). Also if someone does go off line, rubbing on the next guys wheel may not be as bad as hitting some spinning feet..

 

[swscotland bentrider]

Even the UCI admit time trial bikes as a different type. They are not allowed in a road race. So the principle of accommodating different types is already established. I cannot think of a single valid objection to 'bents entering time trials. But the UCI has form. Remember the 'Hour'? Once one of the blue riband events in a top riders career. Now it seems to be confined to (very good) amateurs and has fallen out of public view. All because they insist on you riding a circa 1975 track bike! And don't get me started on Drugs - the UCI sat on its hands while the sport was nearly destroyed.